Of the cameras that I use, all but two are rangefinder and only one of those is digital.
I just returned from South Korea where I took quite a few lenses.. Sigma 17mm f/4.0 (AF), 24mm f/1.4 GM (AF), Voigtlander 35mm & 50mm (AF) and Sigma 90mm (AF). I choose the lenses because each was quite compact for what I used it for. I would have been fine with a 17mm manual lens, because focusing at this focal length is quite easy. To a lesser degree this is true of 35mm and 50mm, but in this case the subjects were mostly static, so no issue here. At 90mm, I find critical focus on high MPix cameras to be much easier with AF.
I have a higher degree of trust with my decisions when I use MF Assist & Peak Focusing in my Sony body much more than leaving decisions firmly to AF only.
Maybe I'm old school...maybe I'm anal, but MF lenses force me to work slower and make more deliberate choices, and the results I get indicate a great advantage of MF lenses over AF.
I own AF lenses and mainly use them when I'm with the grandkids. Rugrats move too fast for MF.
Al Trujillo wrote:
I have a higher degree of trust with my decisions when I use MF Assist & Peak Focusing in my Sony body much more than leaving decisions firmly to AF only.
Maybe I'm old school...maybe I'm anal, but MF lenses force me to work slower and make more deliberate choices, and the results I get indicate a great advantage of MF lenses over AF.
I own AF lenses and mainly use them when I'm with the grandkids. Rugrats move too fast for MF.
Really depends on what one shoots with manual focus lenses. Peaking focus just does not work for me with anything that moves…so that leaves out much of my street and cultural photography where catching the moment is what it’s all about. For stationary objects like landscapes or architecture, peak focusing is fine…but something that moves it will be a challenge to get critical focus where you want it when you want it.
chez wrote:
Really depends on what one shoots with manual focus lenses. Peaking focus just does not work for me with anything that moves…so that leaves out much of my street and cultural photography where catching the moment is what it’s all about. For stationary objects like landscapes or architecture, peak focusing is fine…but something that moves it will be a challenge to get critical focus where you want it when you want it.
Agree with your comment. I should have added that close to 100% of my shooting is landscapes off a tripod.
Personally, I have a larger AF kit than I've ever had. I've got wildlife hikes covered with a couple zooms and a prime + extenders, family vacations with Rolf's brother's family (kids between 6 and 10) and business travel, and my BFD landscape kit, the 907x 100c and three primes. I enjoy the kit. It could also vanish overnight and I don't feel like I'd be in a rush to replace any of it.
My manual kit means more to me, and it boils down to four simple reasons:
4. Focus by wire still sucks.
3. I spend most of my working days testing (evaluation, acceptance, readiness, and diagnosis) some of the best gear currently on offer. That's taught me well what I don't need in my personal kit. I don't have any photographic ambitions beyond making myself happy, and I can do that for much less.
2. Cost to value. The cost of acquisition isn't always low and I have some lenses that were or still are pricey to purchase. I know those lenses, regardless of price paid and baring any total destruction or loss, will be with me for a long time, because I've taken apart enough of them or like copies to be confident I can fix most problems, even if means getting a second copy with a different problem to donate parts that I can't otherwise source. I enjoy that aspect, but there's no chance I'm going to crack open my original 100-400GM, for example, because there's very little I could do for it and the magnetic focus mechanism seems fragile. Also, I often look at the AF kit and feel like I spent more than necessary on it. In the MF kit, I never have that problem.
1. It's more fun to me. There's a reward to me when I shoot entirely in manual, a sense of accomplishment I don't get with the AF kit. I take more pride in those photographs. It doesn't make me a better photographer, but it makes me satisfied with the hobby in ways the latest and greatest AF lenses never will.
One thing to say about long focus throws in manual focus lenses - like Zeiss, who often use 180 degrees or more: you can prepare ahead of shot time by knowing the approx focus distance of your forthcoming shot. So if a street shot of a person at 3m is the target, I set up the focus ring making it much easier to fine tune at shot time.
Prefocus is the fastest focus method—at least if you can identify the future subject and its position. I can achieve prefocus using manual focus or AF by pointing to the position where the subject will enter the frame, and then waiting for the decisive moment. A related method is using the focus tab (if available) to prefocus on a dynamic subject by estimated distance without raising the camera—a street-shooter skill that I have not mastered.
I have to say I have not mastered the art of estimating distances to anticipate subjects and shots some set distance away from you. Only time I can preset a focus is if I have a shot setup and just wait for subject to pop in.
I think I also "trust" MF result more when I am shooting stationary scenes. For new Sony the AF is most of the time so good that its fine but now I am branching into Panasonic I am seeing where I've been spoiled.
Distance estimation, like Sunny 16, is a valuable old-time skill that still serves today for advanced photogs. When paired with a readable DOF scale, you can set up shooting zones with confidence. I hear some hard-core types use laser rangefinders for their situations.
rico wrote:
Distance estimation, like Sunny 16, is a valuable old-time skill that still serves today for advanced photogs. When paired with a readable DOF scale, you can set up shooting zones with confidence. I hear some hard-core types use laser rangefinders for their situations.
But then you are tied to waiting for your subject to enter your zone. What if something amazing was happening with your subject away from your zone? I find trying to predict dynamic situations a losing battle. Yes I know people will post some great shots using zone focus…but what we’ll never see if the missed opportunities because the subject was not in the zone.
chez wrote:
But then you are tied to waiting for your subject to enter your zone. What if something amazing was happening with your subject away from your zone? I find trying to predict dynamic situations a losing battle. Yes I know people will post some great shots using zone focus…but what we’ll never see if the missed opportunities because the subject was not in the zone.
AF or MF, no one hits 100% of the time, and it will be significantly less regardless of your focusing method if you aren't observant and don't practice.
freaklikeme wrote:
AF or MF, no one hits 100% of the time, and it will be significantly less regardless of your focusing method if you aren't observant and don't practice.
Being observant is exactly one of the benefits of AF. Once the focus has latched on, you can concentrate of the subject and their interactions rather than worrying about the focus zone and if the subject is within that zone. Nothing is ever 100% but under challenging conditions where things are not static, I get many more keepers letting the camera keep track of focus for me while I put my efforts into compositions and timing.
I use MF lenses 95% or more percent of the time. I only own 4 AF lenses and two of them are boxed and being sold as I don’t like using them nor the size nor renderings as much. One of the AF lenses—the GM 24/1.4–I typically shoot in MF mode.
I shoot a wide variety of stuff—dogs, concerts, travel, landscape, urban/street, Astro, portraits and video for digital. And I shoot mostly film now.
I find tremendous enjoyment in the character that is forced upon makers when making small fast MF lenses. I enjoy both the usage and the output far more than current zooms. Small size is pivotal for me as well.
I pretty much gave up on manual focus lenses when the A7RV came out with automated focus stacking. I sadly sold my lovely CV 105mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar macro and got a Sigma 105 f/2.8 Macro and have been happy ever since. For me, whether it's the landscape or my family, whether it's focus stacked or not, good autofocus rules.
I agree with Jack Flesher, if you like manual focus, for whatever reason, go out and have fun. I'm not judging anyone for their choice, just sharing mine.
